R. Q. Aini, Y. Sya’bandari, A. N. Rusmana, J. K. Lee, S. Shin, M.

Ha/ JPII 8 (3) (2019) 298-307

299

JPII 8 (3) (2019) 298-307 tary school level until middle school level in the scientific experiment in science and humanities
9th grade. In the high school level, Indonesian majors.
students choose their primary preferences, eit- The experiment is an activity involving
Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia her science class, humanities (social science) human intervention to understand about nature
class, or language and literature, class. Biology, (Harré, 2002). The meaning of scientific expe-
http://journal.unnes.ac.id/index.php/jpii chemistry, and physics are taught as indepen- riment has been a debate for the various philo-
dent subjects in a science major. However, non- sopher of science. Giurgea & Georgescu (2012)
IndonesIAn HIgH scHool students’ PercePtIon of science students can choose one or two prefe- had explained the history of the experiment ac-
scIentIfIc exPerIment usIng network AnAlysIs: rable specialization science subjects during high cording to the philosophers Francis Bacon and
dIfferences between scIence And HumAnItIes grouP school level. It indicates that science learning René Descartes. Both philosophers revealed that
also taught in a non-science major in Indone- methodologies using the experiment as the cent-
sia based on a previous academic level (middle ral method for the scientific method are to ge-
school) or preferable specialization science sub- nerate a causal explanation of a natural pheno-
r. Q. Aini1, y. sya’bandari2, A. n. rusmana3, J. k. lee4, s. shin5, m. Ha*6 jects during high school level. In particular, this menon. Later on, the ”experimental method”
science learning is expected to develop students’ was developed further in the nineteenth-century
Division of Science Education, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, Republic of Korea
1,2,3,6
ability for scientific inquiry and apply it in the where the experiment intends to look for casual
4
Division of Science Education, Chonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea
science classroom as well as real-world situation relations. According to Harré (2002), there are
5
Department of Biology Education, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea
context. three different roles of experiment based on the
In the context of the learning approa- history of science. First, inductivism, a scientist,
doI: 10.15294/jpii.v8i3.18943 ch that suggested from Indonesian curriculum produces laws and theories based on inducti-
(K-2013), scientific approach in teaching and ve as a result of the experiment. For instance,
Accepted: April 5th, 2019. Approved: September 28th, 2019. Published: September 30th, 2019 learning process is preferred. This approach Newton used the inductivist theory by ‘making
encourages students to undergo the process of a conclusion based on experiments and observa-
AbstrAct observation, to ask questions, collect informati- tion by induction. ’
on, associate the information, and communicate Bacon’s result also proposed the induc-
Understanding what students know about the scientific experiment is essential for their metacognition and their the results. It is applied from elementary to high tivist theory, whose role of the experiment is to
understanding of scientific inquiry. A total of 425 Indonesian high school students participated in this study.
school level for all subjects. In this case, teachers discover natural events and arrive at scientist’s
Using an open-ended question, this study examined science and humanities group students’ perception of a sci-
entific experiment by their narrative explanations. Language network analysis method was used to measure and act as the facilitator to develop students’ scienti- law and theories. Second, fallibilism. This view
visualize their perception by examining the relationship between each word of response and its patterns underly- fic skills and promote scientific literacy through is introduced by K. R Popper where scientist
ing the network. After the process of network analysis, nodes “prove,” “observation,” “problem,” “hypothesis” a scientific approach. should think that experiment is a test to exa-
only found in science students group while nodes “new” “object” “try” “test” found in humanities students People might assume that scientific skill mine the hypothesis rather than to confirm the
group. These results also perceived that science students group considered scientific experiment as an inquiry is only preferred for science students as they hypothesis. The role of experiment result is to
process while humanities students were more likely into the discovery process. The results of this study could conduct the scientific experiment in the class- provide an unprovable assumption. Third, con-
support how scientific experiment as a learning activity was taken differently in science and humanities class in room. However, scientific skill is also required ventionalism. The role of the experiment is to
high school. for non-science majors for life skills. This is in illustrate a set of scientist idea and enable them
line with Turiman et al. (2012) who argued that to demonstrate their own theory. In this view,
© 2019 Science Education Study Program FMIPA UNNES Semarang
in preparing students to have the 21st-century experiments do not provide data and facts for
Keywords: experiment, Semantic Network Analysis (SNA), scientific, students’ perception skill for their competitiveness in the globaliza- inducting laws or falsifying a hypothesis. For
tion era, science process skill as scientific skills example, William Prout and Berzelious as
needs to be fostered. It is very crucial to develop biochemist scientists illustrated this views in the
the scientific skill for students in all major. To history of chemistry, where their experiments
IntroductIon text. Generally, scientific literacy is intended for prepare efficient and meaningful learning pro- are not shown if laws were true or false, but their
all students, regardless of whether the students cess, the teacher would be better to know how different prescriptions by empirical test showed
Preparing students to be scientifically lite- will become a scientist or not, to use scientific students perceive the scientific approach itself. distinct conventions for the words used.
rate is the aim of education in several countries. concept and science knowledge for personal Scientific experiment as a method for the scien- Understanding scientific experiment for
For instance, knowing how knowledge justified decision making. Based on the Indonesian Mi- tific approach is also known as a process of jus- the students is necessary for metacognition in
in science is one of the goals in the K-12 science nistry of Education and Curriculum or K-2013 tifying scientific knowledge (Lee et al., 2015). students’ scientific inquiry and nature of scien-
curriculum in the United States (National Rese- (2016), sciences is a systematic effort to create, If students have a sufficient understanding of ce (Lee et al., 2015). Thus, according to Lehrer
arch Council [NRC], (1996). Scientific literacy build, and organize knowledge about natural scientific epistemology and how science is con- & Schauble (2015), the idea of the experiment
also has been the main focus on PISA assess- phenomena and to solve problem. Therefore, ducted, they can have a better rational decision from students is essential because it reflects
ment (Organisation for Economic Cooperation science subject has an essential role in preparing about scientific project and technology (Peters- their classroom activity and reasoning. The rea-
and Development [OECD], 2016) which aims students to be scientifically literate and their Burton & Baynard, 2013; Liu et al., 2011). The soning is an act of thinking; an inferring from
for all the students across majors to use scien- thinking process. term ‘scientific experiment’ is more familiar for statements during the process of knowledge ac-
tific knowledge in the real-world situation con- According to Indonesian 2013 curriculum students due to their science learning experien- quisition (Evans, 2013; Zeineddin, &Abd‐ El‐
(K-2013), science learning has been started in ces in the classroom; therefore, this study inten- Khalick, 2010). By knowing students idea of the
*correspondence Address
E-mail: msha@kangwon.ac.kr science subject since the 4th grade of elemen- ded to explore students’ perception about the scientific experiment, the way the students think
 R. Q. Aini, Y. Sya’bandari, A. N. Rusmana, J. K. Lee, S. Shin, M. Ha/ JPII 8 (3) (2019) 298-307
300
form one idea to another idea will be revealed.
Furthermore, the students’ perception of the
scientific experiment will also unveil their pro-
cess of generating knowledge.
According to DiSessa (2013), individu-
als’ knowledge consists of “pieces,” where their
perception of a particular object has a network
based on the connection with other concepts.
These pieces of knowledge will form a men-
tal model or structure of knowledge. In other
words, students’ perceptions of the scientific ex-
periment are likely to form a connection between
the various pieces of concept (Arma‐ an, 2017;
Lee et al., 2015). Examining language and vo-
cabulary used will report their standard of thin-
king system and understanding of the scientific
experiment. Moreover, the language network
analysis has been used in the field of education
as a method for analyzing and visualizing stu-
dents’ perception structure (Bodin, 2012; Bruun
& Brewe, 2013; Oshima et al., 2012; Schizas et
al., 2013).
Semantic Network Analysis or SNA is
one of the methods to capture students’ per-
ception from textual statements and present the
connection between statements (Lee et al., 2015;
Peters-Burton & Baynard, 2013). This network
analysis works by processing network language
and providing group information functioning
as the direction of their interaction (Carolan,
2013). The implication of network analysis in
education is to support teachers and education
researcher for understanding students’ cogniti-
ve structure as well as help investigate a latent
aspect of the students’ learning (Schizas et al.,
2013). Therefore, this study used the language
network method to identify the core concept
vocabulary used in high school students toward
scientific experiments and to understand con-
texts of experimental cognitive structures. The
network analysis presents interconnectedness
of students’ ideas of a scientific experiment in
nodes provided as this analysis’ strength (Peters-
Burton &Baynard, 2013). Multiple lines arise
between connected nodes indicate the connec-
tion of more than one idea (Peters-Burton &
Baynard, 2013). Another advantage of using the
network analysis is the ability to know object
position and how it is embedded within the net-
work (Brewe et al., 2012; Van der Hulst, 2009).
The previous study by Park et al. (2014)
examined Korean high school students and te-
achers’ perception of the purpose of science
learning using open-ended questionnaires and
semantic network analysis method. Another
study by Lee et al. (2015) had discovered Ko-
rean students’ perception of the meaning of ex-
periment in science and biology. Peters-Burton
& Baynard (2013) also examined that scientist,
science teacher, and students believe in the
scientific enterprise using network analysis. The
results showed that the network analysis method
is useful for framing the group of people’s view
because of its function to visualize the connecti-
on of narrative statements. However, there is no
research about Indonesian students’ epistemolo-
gical understanding of the scientific experiment
yet.
It is also essential for humanities students
to know how scientific research is conducted.
Kayes (2010) argued that social science courses
like sociology, anthropology, and social science
could use the scientific method as a basic stan-
dard. Jackson & Cox (2013) also discussed the
history of the experiment in social sciences and
supported the use of the experimental design
in social sciences. Furthermore, all students in-
clude in social sciences also need to have a deep
understanding of science, not only recognize
science vocabulary (Kayes, 2010). Therefore, this
study intended to investigate how science and
humanities group of students perceive ”scienti-
fic experiment” that represents their process of
generating knowledge. The research output also
can expand scientific experiment epistemology
in the Indonesian context. In other words, the
research question of this study was: How are the
differences between students in science and hu-
manities group perceive the concept of scientific
experiment?
metHods
data collection
A total of 237 Indonesian high school stu-
dents in science class group (134 first-year stu-
dents, 61 second-year students, and 42 third-year
students, comprising of 87 male and 150 female
students) and 188 high school students in hu-
manities class group (126 first-year students, 40
second-year students, and 22 third-year students,
comprising of 54 male and 134 female students)
involved in this study.
An open-ended question, “please explain
the definition of scientific experiment” was used to
investigate high school students’ perception of
a scientific experiment. The question was trans-
lated into Indonesian language (Bahasa) and
R. Q. Aini, Y. Sya’bandari, A. N. Rusmana, J. K. Lee, S. Shin, M. Ha/ JPII 8 (3) (2019) 298-307
distributed using an online questionnaire form
to high school students. To prepare the data
analysis, the student answers were translated
into English using google excel aided by Goog-
le Translate functions. To validate the answers,
three researchers validated and checked the
students’ answers manually. Due to the system
analysis, the meaningless answers meaning such
as “experiment”, “ I do not know”, and answers
similar to internet source were excluded. A typi-
cal answer from the internet was seen from the
same words and sentences. From a total of 883
students’ participated in filling the online questi-
onnaire, a total of 425 data were selected.
data Analysis
In this study, the language network ana-
lysis method used the NetMiner 4 program.
The NetMiner 4 is the software that can ana-
lyze both qualitatively and quantitatively the
students’ perception of a scientific experiment.
The constructed-responses by the students were
identified and generated into the visualization
in the form of network map using the software.
Qualitatively, this software explored the frequen-
cy and weight of word that can be determined
by the researchers until the data and sufficient
information resulted and formed the network
maps. Quantitatively, the output of data analysis
produced a statistical number of word including
frequency, degree of centrality, and degree of
betweenness centrality. Therefore, this software
is appropriate for the objectives of this study.
After the data were translated and checked
in English, the network analysis was performed.
The structural characteristics of the network
were computed based on the general matrix and
calculated by words according to the frequency
of occurrence at the same time in a single res-
ponse (Lee & Ha, 2012). To have a sufficient
result, the “frequency 3” was chosen, and only
words that appeared more than 3 times in the
text data were included in the network. Moreo-
ver, the “weight 5” was chosen, and the relation
between each word was examined. The phrases
which appeared more than 5 times were inclu-
ded in the network. Furthermore, the program
also analyzed full-text units (document). Due to
the repetition of questions which might affect
the results, the phrase “scientific experiment” from
the student responses was replaced into “scien-
tificexperiment” and inputted as an exceptional
list in the program. Thus, the word was not in-
cluded in the data analysis. The analysis results
301
were examined separately between science and
humanities group class, but the same program
setting was applied in both science class and hu-
manities class. After the data texted imported
into the program, the 2-mode network of SNA
from the responses was analyzed. Afterward, the
structure of students’ recognition network was
confirmed through the number of nodes from
the words, the number of links, the network den-
sity, the degree of centrality, and the degree of
betweenness centrality. Thus, the data were also
analyzed based on the feature of the connection
within the network.
results And dIscussIon
The research results presented the stu-
dents’ perception of scientific experiment based
on the main words recognized in each group.
Those words were chosen based on the frequen-
cy, in-degree centrality, and node betweenness.
Afterward, the circle nodes that represent the
words are visualized in the network maps. The
formed network maps presented several groups
of nodes based on its connection. As a result,
this study discussed the group of an idea about
scientific experiment found within the science
and humanities students’ responses. The discus-
sion is based on the highlighted nodes/words
appeared in each group.
words used between science and Humanities
students
The number of links that come into a
node is called in-degree (Bruun&Brewe, 2013).
In this study, in-degree centrality and between-
ness centrality were used as indicators of the
network status. Fifteen words that represent
students’ peace of knowledge about the scienti-
fic experiment are presented, and the degree of
centrality between science and humanities stu-
dents group were compared (Table 1).
The words “prove”, “observation”, “prob-
lem”, “hypothesis” were found in the science
group students. Meanwhile, in the humanities
group students, the words “new”, “object”,
“try”, and “test” were found (Table 1). On the
other hand, several in-degree centralities in the
humanities group were smaller than the scien-
ce group. Among these, the word frequently
mentioned was “scientific” for both science and
humanities group. The science students group
participating in the study explained the meaning
of “scientific” 64 times, while the humanities
 R. Q. Aini, Y. Sya’bandari, A. N. Rusmana, J. K. Lee, S. Shin, M. Ha/ JPII 8 (3) (2019) 298-307 R. Q. Aini, Y. Sya’bandari, A. N. Rusmana, J. K. Lee, S. Shin, M. Ha/ JPII 8 (3) (2019) 298-307
302 303

group explained the meaning of “scientific” 41 which means that the number of links received
times. The next second most mentioned in the from one word to another is higher. Based on
science group was “prove” while in humanities the results, the science students group used a wi-
group was “research”. The average centrality in- der variety of words in a sentence to explain the
dex of each words science students group than meaning of scientific experiment than the huma-
in was higher than humanities group students, nities students group (Table 1).
table 1. The Degree of Centrality Analysis between Science and Humanities Group
science group Humanities group
In-
node node
In-degree degree
no words f betweenness no words f betweenness
centrality central-
centrality ity centrality

1 scientific 64 1.818 0.364 1 scientific 41 1.036 0.123

2 prove 39 1.000 0.128 2 research 31 1.071 0.062
3 conduct 37 0.705 0.155 3 new 27 0.929 0.273
figure 1. Nodes Network of Scientific Experiment in Science Students Group
4 observation 34 1.091 0.092 4 find 26 1.321 0.160
5 science 31 0.705 0.157 5 object 19 0.857 0.050 A1. Scientific Experiment by Hypothesis Testing by Popper. The Popper’s framework of ‘falsifica-
In the first group (Figure 1, Group A1), tion” remains to have critics and debate because
6 theory 30 1.227 0.139 6 theory 19 0.964 0.205
the word “hypothesis” only appeared in scien- of the inconsistent with the substantive aim of
7 find 29 0.432 0.064 7 science 18 0.393 0.040 ce students’ result. The experiment is a part of experimental science (Glass, 2010).
8 activity 24 0.318 0.062 8 try 17 0.250 0.009 the scientific method where the hypothesis is
9 problem 22 0.409 0.054 9 conduct 14 0.107 0.000 an essential feature in this scientific investiga- A2. Scientific Method by Observation Driven
tion (NRC, 2002). The experiment aims to test In the second group (Figure 1, Group
10 research 21 0.432 0.000 10 know 14 0.107 0.000
the hypothesis (Gooding, 2012; Gyllenpalm A2), the “phenomenon” node appeared inde-
11 series 18 0.750 0.000 11 activity 13 0.179 0.000 &Wickman, 2011; Steffe & Thompson, 2000). pendently and connected with “predict” and
12 use 17 0.500 0.024 12 series 13 0.214 0.000 By connecting the node of “hypothesis” with “explain.” Thus, based on this group, it was also
13 hypothesis 15 0.159 0.000 13 study 12 0.107 0.000 “prove” and “theory” (Figure 1, Group A1), it found the node “observation” in which did not
was shown in students’ perceptions that hypot- appear in the humanities student group (Table
14 new 15 0.364 0.049 14 test 12 0.107 0.000
hesis verification is one of the processes of a 2). The node “observation” was also connected
15 produce 15 0.636 0.039 15 thing 11 0.321 0.063 scientific experiment. The hypothesis is one of with “theory.” There was an overlapping idea
Information: the variations to lead the scientific investigation whether the observation was included as a scien-
F = Frequency (Wong & Hodson, 2009), which is the principal tific experiment or not, where in this group, both
science students group framework for scientific experiment. “Falsifiab- terms aim to predict and explain phenomena.
Table 2 shows the density value of the
Figure 1 shows the visualization of a le” hypothesis, according to Karl Popper (Elgin, Moreover, according to Bogen (2009) and Malik
overall connection between the participants.
scientific experiment by the connection of no- & Sober, 2017; Glass, 2010) and “testable” hy- (2017), to get scientific evidence and generate
High or network density indicates the high co-
des and its interaction in science students group. pothesis is the requirement in scientific research, data to explain phenomena, the scientist uses
herency in the language used (Drieger, 2013).
The connection of the network was based on the precisely in the experiment. observation and experiment as a scientific tool.
The humanities student group showed a more
connectivity degree centrality. The size of the Deductive reasoning works for the testab- Observation is used under the more natural con-
significant density (0.086) than science students
node was determined based on in-degree centra- le phenomena by validating the hypothesis co- dition to notice phenomena and get empirical
group (0.075), which suggested that the respon-
lity. Stand on the modularity, eight groups were ming from the initial assumption (NRC, 2002). evidence; also, has a role in theory testing (Bo-
se closely collaborated. However, the average
found in science students group (Figure 1) with Another scientific principle is “pose significant gen, 2009), which differs with an experiment un-
degree of density in science students group was
“scientific,” “prove,” “conduct” “observation” questions” (Glass, 2010; NRC, 2002) and by der some modified conditions to test the hypot-
higher (1.644) than humanities student group
and “theory” become the center of their expla- using hypothesis testing, the questions will dis- hesis. According to scientific principles by NRC
(1.207) which indicated that in the whole net-
nations. Five groups in science class were found cover the phenomena and fill the knowledge gap (2002), inferential reasoning also occurs in sci-
work, the potential connection of science group
connected each with the same nodes. Overall, in (Glass, 2010; NRC, 2002). Thus, the important nece based on “what is known and observed.” It
was higher than the humanities group.
the science group, the highest degree was found questions should be considered as “solid under- also showed that observation is one of the tools
table 2. Density in “scientific” “prove” “conduct” “observati- standing of the relevant theoretical, methodolo- of scientific research for inference. Even though
on” “science” words (Table 1). It indicated that gical and empirical work that has come before” using a different type of reasoning to find out
science Humanities
those words played a crucial role in recognizing (NRC, 2002)”. This is relevant to the results phenomena, both experiment and observation
Density: O(m) 0.075 0.086 scientific experiment in science students. The where the students expressed the words “acti- “provide an empirical base for theories is central
most interesting part that the words “prove,” vity”, “method,” “prove,” “hypothesis.” Even to all theories of scientific method” (Gooding,
Average Degree: though the word “prove” is more likely into a 2012). Therefore, the research results indicated
1.644 1.207 “observation,” “problem,” and “hypothesis”
O(m) process of verification than a falsification as a that science students could explain the role of
only appeared in science students’ network.
modern-day of hypothesis framework proposed observation as a scientific method.
 R. Q. Aini, Y. Sya’bandari, A. N. Rusmana, J. K. Lee, S. Shin, M. Ha/ JPII 8 (3) (2019) 298-307
304
A3. Experiment as an Inquiry Process
The third group (Figure 1, Group A3) is
about “investigate” “procedure” “case” and “con-
duct.” In other words, the perception of scientific
experiments commonly presented in sciences stu-
dents as an inquiry activity to investigate some
case. As described previously, the results of de-
signing experiment and observation are the main
phase in the science lesson for generating inqui-
ry skills (Palmer, 2009). According to Sadeh &
Zion (2009), there are two types of Inquiry. First,
structured inquiry where the teacher gives questi-
ons for students to investigate. Second, open in-
quiry where students determine the phenomena,
build questions, hypothesizing as well as plan
the experiment. In this open inquiry, the students
determined the case by themselves. The open in-
quiry also demanded the students to investigate
the topic questions and find a solution by their
chosen method. This open inquiry method reflects
the type of research and experimental work per-
formed by scientists (Sadeh& Zion, 2009).
A4. Experiment as a Discovery Process
The experiment is a process, where these
days “experiment” is a short of “controlled expe-
riment” to understand the relationship between
phenomena under some conditions (Gyllenpalm,
&Wickman, 2011). The fourth group (Figure 1,
group A4) is present the “find” “new” “thing”
nodes. Another aim of the experiment, according
to Gooding (2012), is to find new things. This fin-
ding new thing can also be called as the process
of discovery. A success process of scientific inqui-
figure 2. Nodes Network of Scientific Experiment in Humanities Student Group
B1: Experiment by Theory-Driven and Laboratory
Task
The first group of humanities group sho-
wed the connection between the nodes “pheno-
ry is scientific discovery, which can be processes,
things, or theories. In other words, according to
the science student group result, this discovery
process refers to the new invention as presented
in the results.
A5. Experiment as Problem-Solving
The highlight point in the group is presen-
ting the nodes “problem,” “solve,” “analyze,”
“knowledge”. However, according to Bazerman
(1988) and Lehrer & Schauble (2015), experiment
is more than testing hypothesis but also reveals
nature. The aims of the experiment are also for
finding new things and problem-solving (Goo-
ding, 2012). The previous study by Sandi-Urena
et al. (2012) showed the improvement in students’
problem-solving skills as the effect of a laboratory
project in the implementation of the experiment.
This implicates that science students group had
aware of other objectives in the scientific experi-
ment for problem-solving.
Humanities student group
There are seven groups found based on the
modularity with “scientific”, “research”, “new”,
and “research” as the center of students’ expla-
nations. According to the results, humanities stu-
dent group had a simpler network where three
groups were connected with the node “new”
while four groups are isolated (Figure 2). Noted
that the based on the most frequent words (Table
1) produced, the words “new”, “object”, “try”,
and “test” only appeared in humanities student
group.
menon”, “predict”, “explain”, “theory”, “accu-
mulation”, and “produce”. Referring to Gooding
(2012), experiment also reflects and comprises
“an accumulation of understanding about what
R. Q. Aini, Y. Sya’bandari, A. N. Rusmana, J. K. Lee, S. Shin, M. Ha/ JPII 8 (3) (2019) 298-307
is going on”. This group clearly showed that hu-
manities students employed theory to produce,
explain, and predict some phenomena. Another
idea of humanities student group was isolated.
For example, in Figure 2, group B5 had nodes
“laboratory” and “test.” A previous study by
Gyllenpalm & Wickman (2011) suggested that
rather than scientific inquiry, the term “experi-
ment” also had the same meaning of “laboratory
task” by teachers and students and more into the
teaching method.
B2 and B3: Scientific Method by Discovery Process
Due to the isolated groups in the humani-
ties student group, the discussion of two groups
merged for the more meaningful discussion. The
second and third group emphasized that huma-
nities student group perception of the scientific
experiment were more into the scientific met-
hod activity by the connecting nodes “find” and
“new” as well as “scientific” and “research”. The
finding of new thing is to present the discovery
activity, which as described before. This scientific
discovery as a scientific method to generate new
knowledge was also used by natural and experi-
mental philosophy such as Bacon, Descartes, and
Newton.
the differences between science and
Humanities group
Although humanities student group also
used a scientific approach and experienced in
science learning through middle school level or
preferable specialization science subjects in high
school, this study showed significant difference
on how they perceived scientific experiment com-
paring with the science student group. Besides,
the frequency of words was found in both groups,
and the students’ reasoning skills were also noti-
ced based on several nodes provided. The speci-
fic perception of scientific experiment formed by
science students consisted of both deductive rea-
soning and inductive reasoning, where they had
nodes “observations” that connected with “the-
ory” and the appearance of nodes “hypothesis”
that connected with “prove”. This is in line with
Steffe & Thompson (2000) who argued that the
aim of the teaching experiment method in the
classroom is to encourage students’ reasoning.
Furthermore, science students’ perception of
scientific experiments was presented as an inqui-
ry activity to investigate some case as well. In the
current Indonesian curriculum (K-2013), science
inquiry as direct experience cannot be outcast in
science learning (Hairida, 2016). According to
Longo (2011), an inquiry program is made for
305
students to use the problem-solving process for
learning through the process of scientific inves-
tigations. Based on the results, science student
group had perceived scientific experiment as an
inquiry process to promote the current curricu-
lum while humanities student group had more
novice ideas where the scientific experiment is
more likely to a process of finding new things as
a discovery process.
Given the result that science students have
more opportunity to experiences scientific experi-
ment in the classroom than humanities students,
the idea of a scientific experiment in students also
depends on how teacher take the experiment as
a learning activity. Moreover, hours of science
learning in the school and students’ engagement
with science also produced difference perception
of a scientific experiment. Further research by
examining students’ attitude toward science for
both science and non-science major can be a sug-
gestion to understand the latent variable of their
perception.
conclusIon
This study aimed to investigate Indonesian
high school students’ perception of the scienti-
fic experiment using qualitative network analy-
sis method. In particular, this study examined
the center words used around the concept of a
scientific experiment in the students’ cognitive
structure between science and humanities group
students. The concept of a scientific experiment
perceived by science students group was more co-
herence, while humanities group of students was
more isolated. As a result, the science students
group understood scientific experiment as more
into inquiry activity and centered on “scienti-
fic” “prove” “theory” and “science.” With eight
groups of the network, science student group had
nodes “prove” “observation” “problem” “hypot-
hesis” which did not appear in humanities stu-
dents group. The results showed how the students
perceived scientific experiment and revealed that
science students group had both deductive-rea-
soning and inductive-reasoning as a process of
scientific investigations. Moreover, science stu-
dents also had a more sophisticated perception of
scientific experiment as they included problem-
solving and investigation in their explanations. In
the case of humanities group, their perception of
scientific experiment centered on nodes “scienti-
fic” “research” “new” and “find”, where accor-
ding to the network, only the node “new” was
connected in three groups. Humanities students
comprehended scientific experiment in more no-
 R. Q. Aini, Y. Sya’bandari, A. N. Rusmana, J. K. Lee, S. Shin, M. Ha/ JPII 8 (3) (2019) 298-307
306
vices where the core of the experiment was fin-
ding new things. They did not discern the deeper
meaning of scientific experiment as a scientific
method as well as the nature of science.
In general, this result of the study can sup-
port how scientific experiment as learning activi-
ty is taken differently by science and humanities
students in Indonesian high school. The students’
perception can be different based on the gained
knowledge and environmental support. This stu-
dy also showed the students’ engagement with
the activity. Since humanities students can also
take science subject, by comparing science and
humanities students’ perception about the scien-
tific experiment, the teacher can prepare the ef-
fective teaching and learning method for both
groups. Moreover, this could become evidence
for developing experimental teaching method in
the classroom to more emphasize scientific expe-
riment so that the students have more scientific
thinking through science.
This study showed that the network ana-
lysis method had expertly gathered the students’
pieces of knowledge and the idea of a scientific
experiment. Besides, this method is useful for
assessment tools as well as the implication of
teaching and learning. The results could be the
evidence for developing teaching method which
emphasize more on scientific experiment to en-
courage the students’ scientific thinking.
references
Armağan, F. Ö. (2017). Cognitive Structures of Ele-
mentary School Students: What is Science?. Eu-
ropean Journal of Physics Education, 6(2), 54-73.
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping Written Knowledge: the
Genre and Activity of. Communication in linguis-
tics-* t.
Bodin, M. (2012). Mapping University Students’ Epis-
temic Framing of Computational Physics Us-
ing Network Analysis. Physical Review Special
Topics-Physics Education Research, 8(1), 010115.
Bogen, J. (2009). Theory and Observation in Science.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/
archives/sum2017/entries/science-theory-ob-
servation/
Brewe, E., Kramer, L., & Sawtelle, V. (2012). Inves-
tigating Student Communities with Network
Analysis of Interactions in a Physics Learn-
ing Center. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics
Education Research, 8(1), 010101.
Bruun, J., & Brewe, E. (2013). Talking and Learning
physics: Predicting Future Grades from Net-
work Measures and Force Concept Inventory
Pretest Scores. Physical Review Special Topics-
Physics Education Research, 9(2), 020109.
Carolan, B. V. (2013). Social Network Analysis and Educa-
tion: Theory, Methods & Applications. Sage Publi-
cations.
diSessa, A. (2013). A Bird’s-Eye View of the “Pieces”
vs “Coherence” Controversy. Vosniadou, S. In-
ternational Handbook on Conceptual Change, 31-
49.
Drieger, P. (2013). Semantic Network Analysis as a
Method for Visual Text Analytics. Procedia-so-
cial and Behavioral Sciences, 79, 4-17.
Elgin, M., & Sober, E. (2017). Popper’s Shifting Ap-
praisal of Evolutionary Theory. HOPOS: The
Journal of the International Society for the History
of Philosophy of Science, 7(1), 31-55.
Evans, J. S. B. (2013). The Psychology of Deductive Rea-
soning (Psychology revivals). New York: Psychol-
ogy Press.
Giurgea, M., & Georgescu, L. (2012). Redefining the
Role of Experiment in Bacon’s Natural His-
tory: How Baconian was Descartes Before
Emerging from his Cocoon?. Early Science and
Medicine, 17(1-2), 158-180.
Glass, D. J. (2010). A Critique of the Hypothesis, and
a Defense of the Question, as a Framework
for Experimentation. Clinical Chemistry, 56(7),
1080-1085.
Gooding, D. C. (2012). Experiment and the Making of
Meaning: Human Agency in Scientific Observation
and Experiment (Vol. 5). Springer Science &
Business Media.
Gyllenpalm, J., & Wickman, P. O. (2011).“Experi-
ments” and the Inquiry Emphasis Conflation
in Science Teacher Education. Science Educa-
tion, 95(5), 908-926.
Hairida, H. (2016). The Effectiveness of Using Inquiry-
Based Natural Science Module with Authentic
Assessment to Improve the Critical Think-
ing and Inquiry Skills of Junior High School
Students. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 5(2),
209-215.
Harré, R. (2002). Great Scientific Experiments: Twenty
Experiments that Changed Our View of the World.
Courier Corporation.
Jackson, M., & Cox, D. R. (2013). The Principles of
Experimental Design and their Application in
Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 27-49.
Lee, J. K., & Ha, M. (2012). Semantic Network Analy-
sis of Science Gifted Middle School Students’
Understanding of Fact, Hypothesis, Theory,
Law, and Scientificness. Journal of the Korean
Association for Science Education, 32(5), 823-840.
Lee, JK & Shin, S. & Ha, M. (2015). Comparing the
Structure of Secondary School Students’ Per-
ception of the Meaning of ‘Experiment’ in Sci-
ence And Biology. Journal of the Korean Associa-
tion for Science Education. 35. 997-1006.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2015). The Development
of Scientific Thinking. Handbook of Child Psy-
chology and Developmental Science, 1-44.
Liu, S. Y., Lin, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). College
R. Q. Aini, Y. Sya’bandari, A. N. Rusmana, J. K. Lee, S. Shin, M. Ha/ JPII 8 (3) (2019) 298-307
Students’ Scientific Epistemological Views and
Thinking Patterns in Socioscientific Decision
Making. Science Education, 95(3), 497-517.
Longo, C. M. (2011). Designing Inquiry-Oriented
Science Lab Activities: Teachers Can Create
Inquiry-Oriented Science Lab Activities that
Make Real-World Connections. Middle School
Journal, 43(1), 6-15.
Malik, S. (2017). Observation Versus Experiment: An
Adequate Framework for Analysing Scientific
Experimentation?. Journal for General Philosophy
of Science, 48(1), 71-95.
Keyes, G. (2010). Teaching the Scientific Method in
the Social Sciences. Journal of Effective Teaching,
10(2), 18-28.
Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (2016).
Silabus Mata Pelajaran IPA: Sekolah Menengah
Pertama (Science Subject Syllabus: Junior High
School). Jakarta, Indonesia: Kementerian Pen-
didikan dan Kebudayaan.
National Research Council (1996). National Science
Education Standards.Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2002). Scientific Research
in Education. Washington, DC: National Acad-
emies Press.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Devel-
opment [OECD]. 2016. PISA 2015 Results (Vol-
ume I): Excellence and Equity in Education, PISA,
OECD Publishing, Paris.
Oshima, J., Oshima, R., & Matsuzawa, Y. (2012).
Knowledge Building Discourse Explorer: A So-
cial Network Analysis Application for Knowl-
edge Building Discourse. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 60(5), 903-921.
Palmer, D. H. (2009). Student Interest Generated Dur-
ing an Inquiry Skills Lesson. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 46(2), 147-165.
Park, K. J., Chung, D. H., Ha, M., & Lee, J. K. (2014).
High School Teachers’ and Students’ Percep-
tions on the Purpose of Science Learning
Based on the Semantic Network Analysis. Jour-
nal of the Korean Association for Science Educa-
tion, 34(6), 571-581.
307
Peters-Burton, E., & Baynard, L. R. (2013). Network
Analysis of Beliefs about the Scientific En-
terprise: A Comparison of Scientists, Middle
School Science Teachers and Eighth-Grade
Science Students. International Journal of Science
Education, 35(16), 2801-2837.
Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2009). The Development of Dy-
namic Inquiry Performances within an Open
Inquiry Setting: A Comparison to Guided
Inquiry Setting. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 46(10), 1137-1160.
Sandi-Urena, S., Cooper, M., & Stevens, R. (2012).
Effect of Cooperative Problem-Based Lab In-
struction on Metacognition and Problem-Solv-
ing Skills. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(6),
700-706.
Schizas, D., Katrana, E., & Stamou, G. (2013). Intro-
ducing Network Analysis Into Science Educa-
tion: Methodological Research Examining Sec-
ondary School Students’ Understanding of ”
Decomposition”. International Journal of Envi-
ronmental and Science Education, 8(1), 175-198.
Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Teaching ex-
periment Methodology: Underlying Principles
and Essential Elements. Handbook of Research
Design in Mathematics and Science Education,
267-306.
Turiman, P., Omar, J., Daud, A. M., & Osman, K.
(2012). Fostering the 21st Century Skills
through Scientific Literacy And Science Pro-
cess Skills. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sci-
ences, 59, 110-116.
Van der Hulst, R. C. (2009). Introduction to Social
Network Analysis (SNA) as an Investigative
Tool. Trends in Organized Crime, 12(2), 101-121.
Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2009). From the Horse’s
Mouth: What Scientists Say about Scientific
Investigation and Scientific Knowledge. Science
Education, 93(1), 109-130.
Zeineddin, A., & Abd‐El‐Khalick, F. (2010). Scientific
Reasoning and Epistemological Commitments:
Coordination of Theory and Evidence among
College Science Students. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 47(9), 1064-1093.